Baby Animal Cartoon Pictures Wallpaper Clipart Images free 2013: Endangered Baby Animals Free Pictures Images Photos Wallpaper Clipart 2013

Tuesday 9 July 2013

Endangered Baby Animals Free Pictures Images Photos Wallpaper Clipart 2013

Endangered Baby Animals Definition

Source(google.com.pk)
While all endangered species are worth saving, it comes as no surprise that the cute and fuzzy members of the animal kingdom stand a better chance of protection. According to research scientist Ernie Small, after “the cuddlies” and the "poster species" like whales and elephants, human conservation efforts tend to stall.

In addition to those animals that make us go "aww," big predators and species that are useful or commercially important top the list of the most-protected species. The losers in this competition are mostly plants, reptiles and amphibians, which are some of the most endangered groups in the world.

In honor of Endangered Species Day, here’s our list of the world’s most adorable endangered species — but not all of them are quite as cuddly as the sand cat kitten pictured here. (Text: Laura Moss) othing new–it’s a trend we’ve documented well here at Fashionista. Cats in fashion spreads? Adorable! But our readers were outraged upon viewing Carine Roitfeld’s latest spread for Harper’s Bazaar, entitled “The Animal Nursery,” featuring models Kate Upton and Irina Shayk posing with baby endangered species.In an effort to clear the air surrounding the origin of the animals involved in the shoot, we contacted Zoological Wildlife Foundation–the organization that provided them to Harper’s Bazaar. Located in Miami, the for-profit foundation describes itself as “an organization dedicated to educating the public about rare and endangered animal species in captivity and in the wild.” A portion of that profit comes from renting out animals to parties, private events, and yes–fashion photo shoots. (“Just picture your favorite model posing with a ‘dangerous’ predator in the jungle,” ZWF describes of renting out a tiger.)n an effort to clear the air surrounding the origin of the animals involved in the shoot, we contacted Zoological Wildlife Foundation–the organization that provided them to Harper’s Bazaar. Located in Miami, the for-profit foundation describes itself as “an organization dedicated to educating the public about rare and endangered animal species in captivity and in the wild.” A portion of that profit comes from renting out animals to parties, private events, and yes–fashion photo shoots. (“Just picture your favorite model posing with a ‘dangerous’ predator in the jungle,” ZWF describes of renting out a tiger.)

When reached for comment, the foundation was tight lipped about the shoot–and Harper’s Bazaar did not respond to multiple inquiries about how the animals were sourced and treated. Flamingo Gardens, the botanical garden where the shoot took place, confirmed to us that the agency through which Harper’s acquired the animals is up to date on its licensing and has been inspected by the USDA.

Regardless of the legality, the shoot doesn’t seem to be sitting well with the public–nor with animal welfare watchdog PETA. A PETA spokesperson told us in an official statement,Well, it appears that these animals were not "ripped from its mother in the wild" but were instead from an animal sanctuary. I've seen non-profit sanctuaries and conditions tend to be pretty much hand-to-mouth unless it is sponsored by somebody with deep pockets. It would appear that these people are using the animals that are photogenic to fund the operations so that the rest of the animals are properly cared for.

I'm certainly not happy about the idea that they provide animals for parties. I would like to know if the welfare of these animals was overseen by some group like the ASPCA, as the animals used in Hollywood filming are.

Some animals simply can not be rehabilitated and released into the wild, and if these babies are offspring of those parent animals then they have no way to learn how to survive in the wild. Or these animals may have been confiscated by the state from people importing them as illegal pets. There is no way such animals can be returned to the wild, they would simply provide the next meal for some predator or poacher after their fur.

Still too many people jumping to conclusions about the stories behind these animals, especially PETA, which makes a big song and funding dance about rescuing animals like dogs and cats. Then they haul those "rescue animals" off and have them destroyed because they cost much to keep fed and sheltered.

I'll add I've never heard of PETA contributing to the upkeep of animal sanctuaries, which ought to be a prime concern of any organization that claims to want to protect animals. Maybe they are, but I certainly haven't heard of it, and PETA doesn't seem to have any problem making itself heard.

I'm not wild about them being used in a photoshoot but lets face it, we don't know the story with these animals. Perhaps instead of shouting out moral indignation with no facts, somebody needs to take the time to learn what is going on with the Zoological Wildlife Foundation and how these animals are acquired and treated.

Then, with the facts in hand a determination can be made about what needs to be done. If it is determined that these animals are not being properly cared for then I'm all in favor of prosecuting the ZWF to the full extent of the law. And perhaps the laws themselves need to be changed. In that case, let's gett'er done!
see more